Trump says he won't sign legislation banning separation of children from parents

[The Barbarian]

No one with any sense is buying it. By now, everyone knows the policy was first planned in 2017, and implemented this year.

And Trump keeps trying to say it's all Obama's fault. Which is at least fun to watch.

Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump directed his administration on Wednesday to try to detain asylum-seeking families together, a reversal after weeks in which he insisted he had no choice but to separate children and adults who cross the border.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-...ons-1529511546

So, you are stating that President Obama never separated families?

I showed you tbat Trump's policy of separating all families seeking asylum is a new one, which was planned in 2017 and implemented this year. Trump lied about it being Obama's policy, and he lied about being unable to end it. When public outrage reached firestorm levels, he caved and ended the policy, giving lie to his claim that he couldn't do it.

Everyone knows this. No point in denying it.

Never deported whole families?

Sorry, no bunny trails for you, today.

You are stating that the title he was given as "Deporter in Chief" was unwarranted?

As I showed you, Obama deported a record number of dangerous criminals. Trump ended that policy, and decided to work on separating children from parents seeking asylum. We now know that the policy was implemented by Trump as a way of discouraging people from applying for asylum. No point in denying that, either.

Not surprisingly, the number of criminals illegally in the United States is now rising.

Document reveals Trump administration planned on separating migrant families soon after inauguration
Notes from a meeting soon after Trump's inauguration show a Department of Homeland Security official listed it among the methods that would discourage asylum seekers.
https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/wa...amilies-soon-after-inauguration-1258507843548

What I really wish is for the ROOT CAUSE to be fixed

Good luck on getting him to tell the truth. Why do you think his lawyers are doing everything they can to keep him from going under oath?

and if you do not know what the root cause is, then you've got a problem.

The root cause, as the right wing Cato Institute has shown, is that economic forces on this side of the border is driving illegal immigration. That's happening because our immigration laws are contrary to the economic well-being of America.

Like prohibition, stupid governmental policies breed contempt for the government and encourage violations. You can like it or you can hate it. But that's how it is.

 

[lifeisgood]

No one with any sense is buying it. By now, everyone knows the policy was first planned in 2017, and implemented this year.

Nah.
The policy was already there.
The policy was never reported by the news as being enforced so no one really knew it was going on. Now, because President Trump is viscerally hated (no one will be able to tell you what he has done to them personally for them to viscerally hate him) we all know that policy was there and we were never informed that it was being enforced in the darkness of night.

Did any news reported that President Trump used the pen to create an executive order to separate illegal children from their illegal parents? Did not see that being reported. Did you? Therefore, my conclusion is that he used something ALREADY in the books.

And Trump keeps trying to say it's all Obama's fault. Which is at least fun to watch.

I believe besides saying that it was going on for DECADES under Democrats and Republican presidents, he said it was the Democrats fault, and it is also their fault because for eight years (maybe even more - President Clinton) they had the opportunity to do something about it and they didn't.

The same thing is happening now. The only difference is that then nothing negative about the mess at the border was being reported by the news and now only the negative mess at the border is being reported.

Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump directed his administration on Wednesday to try to detain asylum-seeking families together, a reversal after weeks in which he insisted he had no choice but to separate children and adults who cross the border.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-...ons-1529511546

Did President Trump used the pen provided by Schumer or did he simply enforce what was already there to shine a light on something going on for decades already? If President Obama was still president, you or I, would never had known what was happening at the border.

I showed you tbat Trump's policy of separating all families seeking asylum is a new one, which was planned in 2017 and implemented this year. Trump lied about it being Obama's policy, and he lied about being unable to end it. When public outrage reached firestorm levels, he caved and ended the policy, giving lie to his claim that he couldn't do it.

Did President Trump use the pen provided by Chuck Schumer to create a law to separate illegal children from illegal parents or did he use what was already in the books to shine a light on it so that everybody would know what was going on and maybe the resistance coalition would be so kind as to come and sit at the table and provide solutions to what has been known to have been happening for decades?

Everyone knows this. No point in denying it.

Everyone knows that this has been going on for decades. Even the resist coalition knew about it and now sanctimoniously shed crocodile tears so that TV viewers can see how caring crocodile tears are.

How about instead of shedding crocodile tears come to the table and go at it to find a solution to the border situation. Oh, I forget, the resistance coalition has stated categorically that they will not sit at the table and provide solution to the border problem because it is an election season and they prefer to talk about President Trump than to provide their solution.

Sorry, no bunny trails for you, today.

Don’t need any.

As I showed you, Obama deported a record number of dangerous criminals. Trump ended that policy, and decided to work on separating children from parents seeking asylum. We now know that the policy was implemented by Trump as a way of discouraging people from applying for asylum. No point in denying that, either.

Translation: President Obama never, ever separated any family members presenting themselves at the border illegally. Yeah, right.

Not surprisingly, the number of criminals illegally in the United States is now rising.

What was that Nancy Pelosi said when President Trump was talking about MS-13 violent thugs. Oh, yeah, 'There is a spark of divinity among every person on earth, and we all have to recognize that as we respect the dignity and worth of every person'. Such religious sanctimonious.....

Document reveals Trump administration planned on separating migrant families soon after inauguration
Notes from a meeting soon after Trump's inauguration show a Department of Homeland Security official listed it among the methods that would discourage asylum seekers.
https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/wa...amilies-soon-after-inauguration-1258507843548

Exactly as President Obama's administration. The ONLY difference is that then it was NOT reported and now because of this viscerally hated president (no one will be able to tell you why they viscerally hate President Trump) the news decided that this was a good way to gain points for the resistance coalition.

Good luck on getting him to tell the truth. Why do you think his lawyers are doing everything they can to keep him from going under oath?

Nah, that is not the root cause.

The root cause, as the right wing Cato Institute has shown, is that economic forces on this side of the border is driving illegal immigration. That's happening because our immigration laws are contrary to the economic well-being of America.

ILLEGAL immigration has been going on for so long people don't even know when it really started. So, that's not really the root cause either.

Like prohibition, stupid governmental policies breed contempt for the government and encourage violations. You can like it or you can hate it. But that's how it is.

Still not the root cause.

However, I agree with you that government is definitely imperfect, especially, when we have resistance coalitions in full bloom.

My belief is that every single person in the government has a PART of the SOLUTION (also people outside of government), however, if one part having one part of the solution refuses to sit at the table and provide its part of the solution, how's that really caring?

The mess at the border has been going on for decades and there has always been a part (Democrats, Republicans, etc.) that has had a part of the solution, however, has refused to come to the table and provide their part of the solution.

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[WizardofOz]

Judge Napolitano's Chambers: Judge Andrew Napolitano explains why it would be unconstitutional to deport immigrant families without due process.

Last weekend, President Donald Trump argued that those foreigners who enter the United States unlawfully should simply be taken to the border, escorted across it and let go. According to the president, this would save precious government resources, avoid the business of separating children from their parents and free up the Border Patrol and other federal assets to do their jobs. He is undoubtedly correct on the beneficial consequences to the government of forced deportation without due process. Yet deportation without a trial is profoundly unconstitutional. Here is the back story. Spoiler The nation has been torn apart by the images of immigrant children -- some are babies -- being forcibly separated from their parents by U.S. immigration authorities, who were getting orders from the Trump administration, which was misreading federal law so as to require the separation. The government has essentially taken the position that those physically present in the U.S. illegally have few constitutional rights and thus family members who arrive together can be separated, no matter the psychological or physical consequences. This forced separation is not novel to the Trump administration, but its massive scale in the present toxic national political environment has painfully brought it to our collective conscience. The forced separation by the government of children from their parents without a trial when neither is a danger to the other is child abuse or kidnapping or both. When federal authorities engage in such morally repellant behavior -- whether as a negotiating technique to bring the president's political adversaries to the bargaining table or to coerce the immigrants to go home -- it exposes them to state prosecution because of the acute and long-term harm they have caused to the children. After a tidal wave of public opinion against this practice finally resonated in the White House, President Trump signed an executive order last week that permitted, but did not require, immigration authorities to reunite the children and their parents. Then, in the wake of a slow reunification -- some of the children had been sent from Texas to New York while their parents were kept in Texas -- the president uttered his exasperation regarding due process. If he had asked his lawyers first, he would have learned that there is no legal basis for his official antipathy to due process. The president took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in relevant part that "no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This is the so-called Due Process Clause, and it essentially prevents all governments from impairing the life, liberty or property of any human being on American-controlled soil without a fair trial. Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. "Person," in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there. This protection is so profound and universally understood that when the George W. Bush administration rounded up what it thought were the collaborators, enablers, supporters and relatives of the 9/11 murderers whom it thought were here unlawfully, it recognized their due process rights and afforded them trials before deportation. The government actually lost many of those cases, and innocents were not deported. Hundreds of books and law review articles have been written about due process. Here we are addressing procedural due process, which has three components. The first is notice. The person against whom the government is proceeding is entitled to a written statement specifically articulating his alleged wrongful behavior sufficiently prior to trial. Once notice is given, the government is hard-pressed to alter the charges. The second component of due process is the requirement of the government to prove its charges against the person to whom it has given notice before a neutral judicial official, not one who works for the entity that is proceeding against him. The third component of due process requires that the entire proceeding against the person be fair, that it appear to be fair and that the outcome be rational. The judge can decide whom to believe, but she cannot, for example, decide that 2+2=22, as that would be irrational. Fairness also includes the right to an appeal. The dangers of rejecting the plain meaning of the Constitution ("person") and the dangers of taking a class of people and refusing to recognize their fundamental constitutional rights because of an immutable characteristic of birth (alienage) cannot be overstated. President Trump is my friend. I like him dearly and wish him well and want him to succeed. But he is profoundly wrong here. He cannot lawfully or morally reject his oath to uphold the Constitution. Denying due process on the basis of alienage is tantamount to denying the personhood of undocumented foreigners as the U.S. once did to slaves and does today to babies in the womb. And that denial is a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lie tyranny and misery. Former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter warned against the denial of due process when he remarked that the history of human liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards by the government. The whole reason we thrive here and the reason others want to come here is that our Constitution guarantees respect for humans' personhood, which has spawned freedom and prosperity. If the due process guarantee were to go by the wayside, all other liberties would soon follow

Spoiler

 

[Idolater]

Judge Napolitano's Chambers: Judge Andrew Napolitano explains why it would be unconstitutional to deport immigrant families without due process.

Last weekend, President Donald Trump argued that those foreigners who enter the United States unlawfully should simply be taken to the border, escorted across it and let go. According to the president, this would save precious government resources, avoid the business of separating children from their parents and free up the Border Patrol and other federal assets to do their jobs. He is undoubtedly correct on the beneficial consequences to the government of forced deportation without due process. Yet deportation without a trial is profoundly unconstitutional. Here is the back story. Spoiler The nation has been torn apart by the images of immigrant children -- some are babies -- being forcibly separated from their parents by U.S. immigration authorities, who were getting orders from the Trump administration, which was misreading federal law so as to require the separation. The government has essentially taken the position that those physically present in the U.S. illegally have few constitutional rights and thus family members who arrive together can be separated, no matter the psychological or physical consequences. This forced separation is not novel to the Trump administration, but its massive scale in the present toxic national political environment has painfully brought it to our collective conscience. The forced separation by the government of children from their parents without a trial when neither is a danger to the other is child abuse or kidnapping or both. When federal authorities engage in such morally repellant behavior -- whether as a negotiating technique to bring the president's political adversaries to the bargaining table or to coerce the immigrants to go home -- it exposes them to state prosecution because of the acute and long-term harm they have caused to the children. After a tidal wave of public opinion against this practice finally resonated in the White House, President Trump signed an executive order last week that permitted, but did not require, immigration authorities to reunite the children and their parents. Then, in the wake of a slow reunification -- some of the children had been sent from Texas to New York while their parents were kept in Texas -- the president uttered his exasperation regarding due process. If he had asked his lawyers first, he would have learned that there is no legal basis for his official antipathy to due process. The president took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in relevant part that "no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This is the so-called Due Process Clause, and it essentially prevents all governments from impairing the life, liberty or property of any human being on American-controlled soil without a fair trial. Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. "Person," in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there. This protection is so profound and universally understood that when the George W. Bush administration rounded up what it thought were the collaborators, enablers, supporters and relatives of the 9/11 murderers whom it thought were here unlawfully, it recognized their due process rights and afforded them trials before deportation. The government actually lost many of those cases, and innocents were not deported. Hundreds of books and law review articles have been written about due process. Here we are addressing procedural due process, which has three components. The first is notice. The person against whom the government is proceeding is entitled to a written statement specifically articulating his alleged wrongful behavior sufficiently prior to trial. Once notice is given, the government is hard-pressed to alter the charges. The second component of due process is the requirement of the government to prove its charges against the person to whom it has given notice before a neutral judicial official, not one who works for the entity that is proceeding against him. The third component of due process requires that the entire proceeding against the person be fair, that it appear to be fair and that the outcome be rational. The judge can decide whom to believe, but she cannot, for example, decide that 2+2=22, as that would be irrational. Fairness also includes the right to an appeal. The dangers of rejecting the plain meaning of the Constitution ("person") and the dangers of taking a class of people and refusing to recognize their fundamental constitutional rights because of an immutable characteristic of birth (alienage) cannot be overstated. President Trump is my friend. I like him dearly and wish him well and want him to succeed. But he is profoundly wrong here. He cannot lawfully or morally reject his oath to uphold the Constitution. Denying due process on the basis of alienage is tantamount to denying the personhood of undocumented foreigners as the U.S. once did to slaves and does today to babies in the womb. And that denial is a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lie tyranny and misery. Former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter warned against the denial of due process when he remarked that the history of human liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards by the government. The whole reason we thrive here and the reason others want to come here is that our Constitution guarantees respect for humans' personhood, which has spawned freedom and prosperity. If the due process guarantee were to go by the wayside, all other liberties would soon follow

Spoiler

I disagree with the judge on what 'person' means in the Constitution, because the preamble reads 'We the People of the United States,' so that to me defines what 'person' or 'people' means throughout the rest of the document.

Regarding President Trump's defense of the Fifth Amendment, he did say something about wanting to take away people's guns without due process, so this wouldn't be the first time that he's run afoul of that particular law. Although, in his defense, he hasn't proposed or signed any legislation to follow his hand, so it might have been another of his many examples of rhetoric meant to bring issues to a head, that are right now just below the surface.

 

[lifeisgood]

Judge Napolitano's Chambers: Judge Andrew Napolitano explains why it would be unconstitutional to deport immigrant families without due process.

Last weekend, President Donald Trump argued that those foreigners who enter the United States unlawfully should simply be taken to the border, escorted across it and let go. According to the president, this would save precious government resources, avoid the business of separating children from their parents and free up the Border Patrol and other federal assets to do their jobs. He is undoubtedly correct on the beneficial consequences to the government of forced deportation without due process. Yet deportation without a trial is profoundly unconstitutional. Here is the back story. Spoiler The nation has been torn apart by the images of immigrant children -- some are babies -- being forcibly separated from their parents by U.S. immigration authorities, who were getting orders from the Trump administration, which was misreading federal law so as to require the separation. The government has essentially taken the position that those physically present in the U.S. illegally have few constitutional rights and thus family members who arrive together can be separated, no matter the psychological or physical consequences. This forced separation is not novel to the Trump administration, but its massive scale in the present toxic national political environment has painfully brought it to our collective conscience. The forced separation by the government of children from their parents without a trial when neither is a danger to the other is child abuse or kidnapping or both. When federal authorities engage in such morally repellant behavior -- whether as a negotiating technique to bring the president's political adversaries to the bargaining table or to coerce the immigrants to go home -- it exposes them to state prosecution because of the acute and long-term harm they have caused to the children. After a tidal wave of public opinion against this practice finally resonated in the White House, President Trump signed an executive order last week that permitted, but did not require, immigration authorities to reunite the children and their parents. Then, in the wake of a slow reunification -- some of the children had been sent from Texas to New York while their parents were kept in Texas -- the president uttered his exasperation regarding due process. If he had asked his lawyers first, he would have learned that there is no legal basis for his official antipathy to due process. The president took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in relevant part that "no person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This is the so-called Due Process Clause, and it essentially prevents all governments from impairing the life, liberty or property of any human being on American-controlled soil without a fair trial. Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. "Person," in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there. This protection is so profound and universally understood that when the George W. Bush administration rounded up what it thought were the collaborators, enablers, supporters and relatives of the 9/11 murderers whom it thought were here unlawfully, it recognized their due process rights and afforded them trials before deportation. The government actually lost many of those cases, and innocents were not deported. Hundreds of books and law review articles have been written about due process. Here we are addressing procedural due process, which has three components. The first is notice. The person against whom the government is proceeding is entitled to a written statement specifically articulating his alleged wrongful behavior sufficiently prior to trial. Once notice is given, the government is hard-pressed to alter the charges. The second component of due process is the requirement of the government to prove its charges against the person to whom it has given notice before a neutral judicial official, not one who works for the entity that is proceeding against him. The third component of due process requires that the entire proceeding against the person be fair, that it appear to be fair and that the outcome be rational. The judge can decide whom to believe, but she cannot, for example, decide that 2+2=22, as that would be irrational. Fairness also includes the right to an appeal. The dangers of rejecting the plain meaning of the Constitution ("person") and the dangers of taking a class of people and refusing to recognize their fundamental constitutional rights because of an immutable characteristic of birth (alienage) cannot be overstated. President Trump is my friend. I like him dearly and wish him well and want him to succeed. But he is profoundly wrong here. He cannot lawfully or morally reject his oath to uphold the Constitution. Denying due process on the basis of alienage is tantamount to denying the personhood of undocumented foreigners as the U.S. once did to slaves and does today to babies in the womb. And that denial is a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lie tyranny and misery. Former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter warned against the denial of due process when he remarked that the history of human liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards by the government. The whole reason we thrive here and the reason others want to come here is that our Constitution guarantees respect for humans' personhood, which has spawned freedom and prosperity. If the due process guarantee were to go by the wayside, all other liberties would soon follow

Spoiler

No wonder people are dying to get into this horrible country fleeing from their wonderful ones.

=====

A thought came to mind when I read this: "The whole reason we thrive here and the reason others want to come here is that our Constitution guarantees respect for humans' personhood, which has spawned freedom and prosperity."

Wonder if he would have protected UNborn children being murdered by their own progenitor. Sorry, another time, another thread.

 

[WizardofOz]

I disagree with the judge on what 'person' means in the Constitution, because the preamble reads 'We the People of the United States,' so that to me defines what 'person' or 'people' means throughout the rest of the document.

Regarding President Trump's defense of the Fifth Amendment, he did say something about wanting to take away people's guns without due process, so this wouldn't be the first time that he's run afoul of that particular law. Although, in his defense, he hasn't proposed or signed any legislation to follow his hand, so it might have been another of his many examples of rhetoric meant to bring issues to a head, that are right now just below the surface.

And the SCOTUS disagrees with you

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. "Person," in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there.

 

[WizardofOz]

No wonder people are dying to get into this horrible country fleeing from their wonderful ones.

=====

A thought came to mind when I read this: "The whole reason we thrive here and the reason others want to come here is that our Constitution guarantees respect for humans' personhood, which has spawned freedom and prosperity."

Wonder if he would have protected UNborn children being murdered by their own progenitor. Sorry, another time, another thread.

He addresses that as well:

Denying due process on the basis of alienage is tantamount to denying the personhood of undocumented foreigners as the U.S. once did to slaves and does today to babies in the womb. And that denial is a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lie tyranny and misery.

Same slippery slope Trump is on by preventing entire groups of people from being legally viewed as "persons". :think:

All humans are 'persons' whether a fetus or an illegal immigrant. You disagree?

 

[Idolater]

And the SCOTUS disagrees with you

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. "Person," in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there.

That's OK. I can still have an unauthorized opinion on a matter.

Which SCOTUS case was that from, btw?

 

[The Barbarian]

No wonder people are dying to get into this horrible country fleeing from their wonderful ones.

Trump thinks it's a horrible country, in need of major revisions. Most Americans, and most of the rest of the world thinks it's a great place right now.

It's a testament to the confidence the world has in America, that so many people believe it will continue to be a great country in spite of the government we have at the moment.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's OK. I can still have an unauthorized opinion on a matter.

Which SCOTUS case was that from, btw?

We interviewed several legal scholars who agreed that undocumented immigrants have many constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, and if arrested, a right to a Miranda warning.

"There is no question that all persons in the United States including unauthorized migrants enjoy the protections of the Constitution," said Gabriel (Jack) Chin, law professor at University of California-Davis. "There is no debate about that among legal scholars."

The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment protects everyone from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law, Chin said.

There have been several court decisions dating back more than a century that outline the rights of undocumented immigrants.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas vs. Davis (2001) that "once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the due process clause applies to all persons within the United States."

In a Texas case, Plyler vs. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that non-citizen children must get a free K-12 education.

But undocumented immigrants don’t share all of the rights held by citizens -- for example, they can’t vote in state and national elections.

And Fordham law professor Jennifer Gordon said that some undocumented immigrants get almost no due process in removal proceedings.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ocumented-immigrants-have-constitutional-rig/

 

[WizardofOz]

That's OK. I can still have an unauthorized opinion on a matter.

Which SCOTUS case was that from, btw?

[MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION] beat me to it. It was several cases, actually.

Spoiler

The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."

Twenty years before Zadvydas, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas could not enforce a state law that prohibited illegally present children from attending grade schools, as all other Texas children were required to attend.

The court ruled in Plyler that:

The illegal aliens who are ... challenging the state may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of the term ... the undocumented status of these children does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying benefits that the state affords other residents.

A decade before Plyler, the court ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution's amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present.

Three key Supreme Court decisions in 1886, 1896 and 1903 laid the 14th Amendment basis for the consistent ruling of the court that aliens, legal and illegal, have constitutional protection in criminal and certain civil affairs in the justice system.

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the court ruled that:

Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons of similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution [the 14th Amendment].

In Wong Win v. United States (1896), the court ruled that:

It must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection by those amendments [Fifth and Sixth] and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

In summary, the entire case of illegal aliens being covered by and protected by the Constitution has been settled law for 129 years and rests on one word: "person." It is the word "person" that connects the dots of "due process" and "equal protection" in the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and it is those five words that make the Constitution of the United States and its 14th amendment the most important political document since the Magna Carta in all world history.

Although I'd still love to hear a rebuttal as to on what legal grounds you disagree. I assume you're pro-choice.

 

[Idolater]

[MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION] beat me to it. It was several cases, actually.

Spoiler

The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."

Twenty years before Zadvydas, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas could not enforce a state law that prohibited illegally present children from attending grade schools, as all other Texas children were required to attend.

The court ruled in Plyler that:

The illegal aliens who are ... challenging the state may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of the term ... the undocumented status of these children does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying benefits that the state affords other residents.

A decade before Plyler, the court ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution's amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present.

Three key Supreme Court decisions in 1886, 1896 and 1903 laid the 14th Amendment basis for the consistent ruling of the court that aliens, legal and illegal, have constitutional protection in criminal and certain civil affairs in the justice system.

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the court ruled that:

Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons of similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution [the 14th Amendment].

In Wong Win v. United States (1896), the court ruled that:

It must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection by those amendments [Fifth and Sixth] and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

In summary, the entire case of illegal aliens being covered by and protected by the Constitution has been settled law for 129 years and rests on one word: "person." It is the word "person" that connects the dots of "due process" and "equal protection" in the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and it is those five words that make the Constitution of the United States and its 14th amendment the most important political document since the Magna Carta in all world history.

Although I'd still love to hear a rebuttal as to on what legal grounds you disagree.

Thank you to you both (@The Barbarian).

I don't know precisely what is meant by 'legal grounds,' but my rebuttal is based on the preamble 'We the People of the United States' defining what is meant by 'person' and 'people.' That's it.

I assume you're pro-choice.

No, abortion should be illegal when not in defense of the mother.

 

[WizardofOz]

Thank you to you both (@The Barbarian).

:e4e:

I don't know precisely what is meant by 'legal grounds,'

Three key Supreme Court decisions in 1886, 1896 and 1903 laid the 14th Amendment basis for the consistent ruling of the court that aliens, legal and illegal, have constitutional protection in criminal and certain civil affairs in the justice system.

Rather compelling legal grounds, I would argue.

but my rebuttal is based on the preamble 'We the People of the United States' defining what is meant by 'person' and 'people.' That's it.

Akin to judging a book by its cover or rather, judging a book by its first sentence. 'We the people' determined that aliens, legal or illegal are 'people' and have constitutionally guaranteed' legal rights. Because we are a just nation, 'we the people' are just to illegal aliens.

No, abortion should be illegal when not in defense of the mother.

So illegal aliens are not 'persons' but the unborn are? I'm pro-life and see you on a slippery slope by even attempting to declare which humans are 'persons'. You know who else uses that argument?

 

[Idolater]

Three key Supreme Court decisions in 1886, 1896 and 1903 laid the 14th Amendment basis for the consistent ruling of the court that aliens, legal and illegal, have constitutional protection in criminal and certain civil affairs in the justice system.

Rather compelling legal grounds, I would argue.

That's fine. And thanks again for the sources for what you're saying.

Akin to judging a book by its cover or rather, judging a book by its first sentence. 'We the people' determined that aliens, legal or illegal are 'people' and have constitutionally guaranteed' legal rights.

That's what the SCOTUS says, yes.

Because we are a just nation, 'we the people' are just to illegal aliens.

Do you believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regarding illegal aliens too?

So illegal aliens are not 'persons' but the unborn are?

Homonyms. Equivocation. And besides, the right to life is inalienable, and is affirmed for everybody, American citizen or not, and that's independent of whatever opinion the SCOTUS renders in the Bill of Rights.

I'm pro-life and see you on a slippery slope by even attempting to declare which humans are 'persons'. You know who else uses that argument?

I'm not at the edge of any slippery slope, relax. Besides, it's the 14th Amendment that supposedly grants the 'right' to abortion on demand anyway, right?

 

[WizardofOz]

Do you believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, regarding illegal aliens too?

Absolutely not. They simply have a right to due process, that's all I am stating. I am not saying they should have full rights of US citizens like being legally able to bear arms, vote, etc.

Homonyms. Equivocation.

It's what we're discussing. Are aliens 'persons'? It the crux of the debate.

And besides, the right to life is inalienable, and is affirmed for everybody, American citizen or not, and that's independent of whatever opinion the SCOTUS renders in the Bill of Rights.
I'm not at the edge of any slippery slope, relax. Besides, it's the 14th Amendment that supposedly grants the 'right' to abortion on demand anyway, right?

I am simply pointing out that denying groups of people legal personhood is what gave us abortion on demand. You'e using a pro-choice debate tactic against illegal immigrants. The argument is nearly identical.

 

[lifeisgood]

In a perfect world, those fleeing their wonderful countries to come to this horrible country would not happen. Because their countries would be horrible and this one would be wonderful and they would not want to come here because of the wonderfulness of this country. They come because their wonderful countries are so wonderful they cannot stand it and they put their lives, and the lives of their children, in danger to be embraced by this horrible country.

But alas, we live in a fallen world.

======

Who are we going to accuse IF what Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador is proposing, if he is the next president of Mexico, happen?

eluniversal.com reports: Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) declared mass immigration to the United States a “human right” for all North Americans during a speech Tuesday.

“And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”

He then declared migration “a human right we will defend.”

I note he did not say 'mass immigration' to Mexico or 'mass immigration' to Canada, a "human right" to all. Wonder why.

 

[ok doser]

... its first sentence. 'We the people' determined that aliens, legal or illegal are 'people' ...

there's more to that first sentence - what are the next four words?

should they apply to furriners?

 

[Idolater]

eluniversal.com reports: Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) declared . . . migration . . . a human right . . . .

So then to him, the right of the people to migrate shall not be infringed. Except that, exercising the right to keep and bear arms isn't inherently zero-sum, like it is with migration, especially as population continues to grow. Although maybe he's thought through extreme, dystopian overpopulation, where exercising the right to life is zero-sum.

 

[lifeisgood]

So then to him, the right of the people to migrate shall not be infringed.

I do not believe there is an 'infringement' of migration; if that was so, there would not be a border problem.

But, alas, that is not what the next president of Mexico meant.

Except that, exercising the right to keep and bear arms isn't inherently zero-sum, like it is with migration, especially as population continues to grow. Although maybe he's thought through extreme, dystopian overpopulation, where exercising the right to life is zero-sum.

No can say what he thought through. I ain't him.

 

[The Barbarian]

there's more to that first sentence - what are the next four words?

should they apply to furriners?

Yep. Even illegal aliens have rights under the Constitution, albeit not all of the ones recognized for citizens.

We found that undocumented immigrants do have constitutional rights -- but not all of the rights of citizens. (We have previously fact-checked a claim about whether unlawful presence in the United States is not a crime, a claim we ruled Mostly True.)

Some rights, but not all

A spokeswoman for the Florida Immigrant Coalition pointed to an article by an author of immigration books about constitutional protections for undocumented immigrants.

We interviewed several legal scholars who agreed that undocumented immigrants have many constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, and if arrested, a right to a Miranda warning.

"There is no question that all persons in the United States including unauthorized migrants enjoy the protections of the Constitution," said Gabriel (Jack) Chin, law professor at University of California-Davis. "There is no debate about that among legal scholars."

The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment protects everyone from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law, Chin said.

There have been several court decisions dating back more than a century that outline the rights of undocumented immigrants.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas vs. Davis (2001) that "once an alien enters the country, the legal circumstance changes, for the due process clause applies to all persons within the United States."

In a Texas case, Plyler vs. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that non-citizen children must get a free K-12 education.

But undocumented immigrants don’t share all of the rights held by citizens -- for example, they can’t vote in state and national elections.

And Fordham law professor Jennifer Gordon said that some undocumented immigrants get almost no due process in removal proceedings.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ocumented-immigrants-have-constitutional-rig/